Are batting and bowling equally important in test cricket?

[GIMH]

That's not the same as it being a medicore line-up though, you can't move the goalposts, the question was a successful side with a medicore line-up, we were not this.

We collapsed at Lord's...and the chase against Trent Bridge got nervy...but that's a bit different.

We certainly didn't utterly collapse at The Oval, we were collapsing but ultimately posted a decent score...

 

[Prince EWS]

I tend to use the word 'mediocre' a bit differently to most people, but to be fair it was Jono who asked the question, not me, so he was probably using your definition.

 

[Jono]

I agree with GIMH. I don't think England apply at all.

And that's one series. Over a period of time that England batting lineup did well - see England in South Africa 2004.

And New Zealand is most certainly not an answer to that question either.

 

[Uppercut]

I was referring to Lord's, Trent Bridge and the second innings at Edgbaston.

I'd have used PEWS's definition of mediocre too. You could use some of the West Indian sides of the 90s too. It's really an impossible question to answer if every time we come up with something the bar for what constitutes "success" is raised or the bar for what constitutes "mediocre" is lowered.

 

[Jono]

Forget the word then, and put a standard of when a batting lineup has been "not that good" (by whatever standard you like) and yet successful, that proves bowling is more important.

Because one hasn't been found yet in this thread. And Ashes 2005 is not an example, as you'll see England scored well on various occasions in a first innings which allowed the win.

 

[honestbharani]

I was referring to Lord's, Trent Bridge and the second innings at Edgbaston.

I'd have used PEWS's definition of mediocre too. You could use some of the West Indian sides of the 90s too. It's really an impossible question to answer if every time we come up with something the bar for what constitutes "success" is raised or the bar for what constitutes "mediocre" is lowered.

It is impossible because it is really quite difficult to do well in cricket with a mediocre lineup (either batting or bowling)... You got to be good to a reasonable level in both to be successful at any level. Simple fact of cricket.

 

[honestbharani]

Forget the word then, and put a standard of when a batting lineup has been "not that good" (by whatever standard you like) and yet successful, that proves bowling is more important.

Because one hasn't been found yet in this thread. And Ashes 2005 is not an example, as you'll see England scored well on various occasions in a first innings which allowed the win.

yep scoring 400+ in 1 day against that Aussie line up (even without McGrath) is not a mediocre batting side...

 

[Jono]

If India continue to stay #1 with this bowling lineup, or even if they have bigger names in their bowling, yet the quality they have been bowling at stays the same, it really does hurt the contention of many in this thread that bowling is more vital.

India must fail (or improve their bowling) for them to not be proven wrong IMO.

Scoreboard pressure is incredibly important, and can turn a poor/mediocre/average bowling lineup into a very dangerous one.

 

[GIMH]

I tend to use the word 'mediocre' a bit differently to most people, but to be fair it was Jono who asked the question, not me, so he was probably using your definition.

I was referring to Lord's, Trent Bridge and the second innings at Edgbaston.

I'd have used PEWS's definition of mediocre too. You could use some of the West Indian sides of the 90s too. It's really an impossible question to answer if every time we come up with something the bar for what constitutes "success" is raised or the bar for what constitutes "mediocre" is lowered.

It's all well and good saying you were using a different definition of medicore, but I was using the dictionary one so I'll just say you're both wrong in this case

Forgot about the Edgbaston collapse though so I'll let you have that one UC

 

[Prince EWS]

Forget the word then, and put a standard of when a batting lineup has been "not that good" (by whatever standard you like) and yet successful, that proves bowling is more important.

Because one hasn't been found yet in this thread. And Ashes 2005 is not an example, as you'll see England scored well on various occasions in a first innings which allowed the win.

Hmm no-one's saying you don't need to score runs to win though. The fact that they posted winning totals doesn't really prove that they had a good batting lineup - the point people are making is that if you're bowling well and knocking the opposition over you'll put pressure on their bowlers and make it easier for you to post good scores even if your batting lineup isn't particularly good. If you're asking for an example of a ridiculously abnormal team who regularly posted 150 in each innings but won anyway due to knocking their opposition over for 120, you're not going to find one, but that's not the point.

Let me put it this way - if the standard of England's batting and bowling was reversed, I don't think they'd have fared as well as they did in that period. I think the bowling carried the batting to a large extent in a way a really good batting lineup can't really carry a middle-of-the-road bowling attack. Their batting lineup wasn't 'bad' - it was certainly good enough to do the job if the bowlers did, but it was definitely not reflective of exactly how well they were performing.

I voted for the third option anyway because batting and bowling have an inverse relationship in cricket between teams. Team A's bowling and Team B's batting can't both come out on top at the end of the game, for example.

 

[Prince EWS]

If India continue to stay #1 with this bowling lineup, or even if they have bigger names in their bowling, yet the quality they have been bowling at stays the same, it really does hurt the contention of many in this thread that bowling is more vital.

India must fail (or improve their bowling) for them to not be proven wrong IMO.

Scoreboard pressure is incredibly important, and can turn a poor/mediocre/average bowling lineup into a very dangerous one.

Scoreboard pressure works in reverse too, though. As much as batting lineups get overawed chasing 500, bowlers can completely lose their patience and stop working to plans if they're only bowling to 180.

 

[honestbharani]

Scoreboard pressure works in reverse too, though. As much as batting lineups get overawed chasing 500, bowlers can completely lose their patience and stop working to plans if they're only bowling to 180.

which is why both disciplines are equally important.



</thread>

 

[Furball]

Hmm no-one's saying you don't need to score runs to win though. The fact that they posted winning totals doesn't really prove that they had a good batting lineup - the point people are making is that if you're bowling well and knocking the opposition over you'll put pressure on their bowlers and make it easier for you to post good scores even if your batting lineup isn't particularly good. If you're asking for an example of a ridiculously abnormal team who regularly posted 150 in each innings but won anyway due to knocking their opposition over for 120, you're not going to find one, but that's not the point.

Let me put it this way - if the standard of England's batting and bowling was reversed, I don't think they'd have fared as well as they did in that period. [I think the bowling carried the batting to a large extent in a way a really good batting lineup can't really carry a middle-of-the-road bowling attack. Their batting lineup wasn't 'bad' - it was certainly good enough to do the job if the bowlers did, but it was definitely not reflective of exactly how well they were performing.

I voted for the third option anyway because batting and bowling have an inverse relationship in cricket between teams. Team A's bowling and Team B's batting can't both come out on top at the end of the game, for example.

2 things:

1. Current India side says "hi".
2. In what way was England's batting dependent on the bowlers doing a good job? England batted first in 4 out of the 5 Tests that series, and England's worst 1st innings that summer came the only time they batted 2nd, after they'd dismissed Australia inside 2 session for roughly 170.

England's bowling was the stronger suit, but in 4 out of the 5 Tests they got their first bowl with the batting lineup having already put 400 on the board.

 

[Uppercut]

the point people are making is that if you're bowling well and knocking the opposition over you'll put pressure on their bowlers and make it easier for you to post good scores even if your batting lineup isn't particularly good.

I've always wondered about this. If your bowlers go out on the morning of the first test and hoop the ball round in circles, beating the bat two or three times an over, and skittle the other side for 200... I dunno, I'm a lot more concerned coming out to bat immediately afterwards than if the other side have racked up 500. I remember Sri Lanka racking up a HUGE total against Pakistan in the opening match of their doomed tour there last year. Younis Khan came out at the end of day two and ranted about the PCB being dicks for making such a flat pitch. Then promptly scored just under 300. The weight of all those runs sure as hell didn't bother him.

Of course, runs are subsequently valued less. A 300 chasing 500 is considered hopelessly inadequate, but when facing 200 it's considered a good effort in what are then concluded to be difficult batting conditions. Is it really easier to reach 300 facing a big total than it is facing a small one? Does quality bowling give batsmen a mental edge, or does it merely make their totals seem better because they're enough in one case but not in the other? Corrin referenced the English batting lineup regularly making 400 in 2005- fair enough, it was enough, given their bowling attack- but I remember their 2009 counterparts being slaughtered for only making 400 in the first innings at Cardiff.

And on top of that, there are certain opponents for which the complete opposite of what you say is undoubtedly true. If you bowled out Steve Waugh's Australia for 200 on the opening morning they'd come back at you twice as hard. Your chances of making 350 are inversely proportional to how low a total you had the cheek to bowl them out for.

So much of cricket is played in the mind, but the mental effects of certain activities are so difficult to quantify I often find myself concluding that it's not even worth bothering.

 

[GIMH]

Corrin referenced the English batting lineup regularly making 400 in 2005- fair enough, it was enough, given their bowling attack- but I remember their 2009 counterparts being slaughtered for only making 400 in the first innings at Cardiff.

Fair point - they were slaughtered at Edgbaston for only getting 400 as well IIRC

 

[Uppercut]

Right enough, remember that well now that you mention it. They asked a bunch of commentators on the second morning how they thought the day would end and they all thought Australia would be 300+ for three or four down.

400 looked a much more substantial total by the time the teams got to Trent Bridge and the quality of England's bowling lineup had properly sunk in.

 

[Furball]

I've always wondered about this. If your bowlers go out on the morning of the first test and hoop the ball round in circles, beating the bat two or three times an over, and skittle the other side for 200... I dunno, I'm a lot more concerned coming out to bat immediately afterwards than if the other side have racked up 500.

There's still a lot of pressure on the opposition bowlers to match the effort - all that's needed is for batsmen to play and miss at jaffers, edges not to carry/go into gaps and you can be looking at the opposition all of a sudden being 50 for no loss, then the sun comes out and the ball stops swinging. That's huge pressure for the bowlers.

 

[Uppercut]

Haha that isn't an argument! You've just completely made up a scenario where your ideas are correct.

I don't think bowlers feel under pressure bowling to low totals. Some might start to lose interest sooner, but they certainly don't wilt under the pressure.

 

[vcs]

There's still a lot of pressure on the opposition bowlers to match the effort - all that's needed is for batsmen to play and miss at jaffers, edges not to carry/go into gaps and you can be looking at the opposition all of a sudden being 50 for no loss, then the sun comes out and the ball stops swinging. That's huge pressure for the bowlers.

I agree with this. On some grounds, there is assistance only for the first session of a Test match and nothing could be worse for the game than if the side batting first loses 6-7 wickets in that period. It's just a long up-hill struggle from there on and only one result is possible.

Also, I can't remember the last exciting low-scoring ODI I watched. When was the last time someone successfully defended a sub-180 total? What generally tends to happen is that the side bowling second gets a few oohs and aahs early on, then starts to let their shoulders drop after 12 overs when the score is 55/1 or something.

 

[Uppercut]

ODIs are about as relevant as rugby, though. The run-rate you need to score at or prevent is directly determined by the first innings of the match.